Genetically Modified Food Issues – Educational Video Part 1

the lifeblood of a democracy is your ability to understand and act upon a problem once the facts are presented to you the purpose of this motion picture is to give you the facts and then you as individuals and citizens of a democracy must take action every culture on the planet Earth is always changing sometimes rapidly and sometimes very slowly these changes occur in different ways one is through diffusion of culture traits from one culture to another the primitive native quickly adopts many of the advanced cultures tools whose value is readily apparent to him on the other hand primitive culture traits like the Indian maize are quickly adopted by the advanced cultures who see value in them as the science of Agriculture advances the world will be better fed than clothes and house you too will reap great harvests today agriculture is going far beyond nature to produce new miracles or an even better more abundant life on the farm today wherever you look you see the handiwork of scientists improved crops more productive soils more useful more efficient machinery they are the result of a miraculous agriculture folsom wholesome wholesome goodness wholesome wholesome wholesome goodness wholesome wholesome wholesome goodness Productions presented in the harvest of 1999 60 percent of Canada's canola crop was genetically engineered 90 percent of Argentina's soybean crop 50% of the US soybean crop 33 percent of the u.s. plain crack was genetically engineered industrial agriculture is damaging the basis for future production we've got soil erosion soil compaction salinization water logging destruction of beneficial biodiversity loss of natural enemies of pests that's really occurring at an alarming rate three things needed to come together to make the Green Revolution work one was the development of specific high-yield varieties and often dwarf varieties of wheat or rice and also corn that were derived by special outcrossing and hybridization techniques at Norman Borlaug perfected working in Mexico and also in the southwestern United States secondly there was a tremendous investment of funds from the Rockefeller Foundation and the World Bank to assist poor countries to develop broader food base based on these resources and then third there was a tremendous availability and input and requirement for pesticides fertilizers and irrigation which combined to reinforce the value to American commerce of supporting this type of agriculture the Ford Foundation in the Rockefeller Foundation and the 50s we're concerned that if the issue of hunger and the third world wasn't addressed then poor people in those countries would be right for communist subversion the green revolution which is really the introduction of chemical agriculture under force circumstances to countries like India was basically created as an antidote to social change it was meant to reinforce patterns of inequality which it did the smaller peasants lost their land because they could not afford to keep up with the credit payments linked to the Green Revolution the intensive water use has left large tracts absolutely desertified the agricultural diversity that fed people has been wiped out and yes the production of rice and wheat has increased but that is not an absolute increase in food the production of legumes of darls of China of chickpea of oil seeds of mustard has all come down faced with the choice of crop failures and resulting worldwide starvation the use of pesticides and herbicides seems inevitable if we talk about pesticides specifically they came out of the defense industry the first modern synthetic chemical pesticides were derived from nerve gases developed by the Germans in World War two and they found that by some simple changes in the molecules instead of having their greatest toxicity be for human beings they could have their greatest toxicity for insects there are plenty of chemical factories left over from World War two we got a raft of secrets from Nazi Germany that allowed us to make organophosphate pesticides that we did not have the capacity to make before my uncle was in the intelligence service in the army and went to the IG Farben plant and got all the chemical secrets that they had for making organophosphates as well as plastics and this in part contributed to a great expansion in our knowledge base for making chemicals that could be used in the pesticide industry through the chemistry of explosives that connects directly because of the chemistry of it with the chemistry of fertilizers and then coming out of the war you have a whole infrastructure of industrial capacity that was war oriented with nothing to do the impression I have is that chemical agriculture became the norm when it was clear that the progressive addition of rounds of fertilizer amendments to soils that are chemically based coupled with pesticide regimes that suppress weeds and also controlled insect pests worked best on large scale operations where you could mechanized production and use aerial application of the pesticides the chemicals that are used for pest control historically through the 1950s and early 60s were by design chemicals with long environmental persistence like Florida comb DDT chlordane those are major chlorinated chemicals that have half-lives measured in decades rather than months or weeks the idea was that they build up a protective barrier in the soil against repeated infestations virtually all the chemicals I just listed have been banned and have terrible environmental consequences because of their persistence their ability to concentrate up the food chain and their concentration in food crops particularly crops that have a heavy oil base like corn and other the whole mentality of industrial agriculture is really similar to the whole mentality of war humankind against nature man against nature and using the same kind of weapons that we use to dominate people in warfare one of the newest and most versatile weapons in dows arsenal of chemical warfare and I think we can contrast that to the alternatives to organic farming or more a Greek illogical approaches which are gentle techniques which don't involve the domination of nature but really the living with nature there's the USDA study from you know from information they got in 1998 that showed that the average revenue per acre on a farm larger than 2000 acres was this is pretty year what's $21.40 per acre per year on a large-scale farm however the average revenue per acre on a farm of 10 acres or smaller was 1960 dollars and on our farm it's probably somewhere around like like fifteen sixteen thousand dollars per acre one of the reasons why large farms are relatively unproductive compared to small farms is that large farms the world over tend to use monocultures a monoculture is a single crop species planted over a very large area and large farms have to use that unproductive farming system because their size means that they have to mechanize a lot of their operations and it's difficult to mechanically plant or mechanically harvest more than one crop yet that's terribly inefficient the idea that the average production on a larger-scale farm the average revenue for a year is you know a little more than twenty bucks I mean how the hell can anybody possibly make a business out of that and the answer is by having hundreds of thousands of acres I guess the point that becomes really important is the fact that that we believe that small farms are not efficient it's because they do not have the subsidies whether these are farmers in third world countries like the Philippines or Mexico or these are small family farms in this country they're all on the brink of extinction because the subsidies that should be provided to them the support that should be provided to them it's all being channeled to big agribusiness corporations let's see how the system works the way the system works in essence is that it works to keep the prices low that farmers receive for what they produce while subsidizing the corporations like Cargill or like Archer Daniels Midland or continental grain that take us farm products and export them so that they can put them onto the global market at prices that can undercut farmers anywhere else in the world you see Tommy with the tools we have today farmers all over the country can produce great surpluses since we continuously have a surplus of many of our grains and we have the lowest commodity prices in probably 15 years presently the question is why do we continue to insist that we need second green revolution about technology revolution in order to feed the world thus agricultural research in colleges industry and government goes forward result new products new businesses more jobs help yourself to a miracle you hope in the battle for control yes well we come down to Safeway is one of the world's biggest supermarket chains to try and get the message across that they should not be selling genetically modified food I come from England one of the countries where there's been a very big campaign on this whole issue and really what we're saying now is that you know we need to stand back from this unnecessary and very dangerous experiment I think the main concern here is that the genetically engineered food safe way is g-iii in Europe and they haven't even begun to label in the US which is somewhat of a concern and double standard for Europeans and the United States citizen genetically engineered foods could be having effects on people right now but because they're unlabeled no one would know biotech is an incredibly broad subject area really if you take the textbook definition it's the use of living organisms are components thereof to make useful products processes and services all the food we've eaten all our lives that our parents have eaten our grandparents have eaten and so on it's all been genetically modified just by various kinds of techniques many consumers would be surprised to find out that our modern tomatoes are derived from an ancient predecessor that was a tiny berry in fact it was quite toxic it's through literally hundreds of years of selective breeding that is genetic modification that we have the modern tomato what we're talking about is the the extraction of genetic material out of a reproductive context a context that has been evolving with this piece of DNA over millions of years taking it out manipulating it as a chemical and then putting it back into another reproductive context where it's going to operate in a different way this this type of manipulation the transgenic manipulation really has no precedent in history or in evolution here in fact is the answer to a dream as old as man himself a giant of limitless power at man's command the beauty and peril of genetic engineering is that you can move genes from as far distant a species as a flounder into a tomato to ensure that you have a plant that's tolerant to very low temperatures because of antifreeze genes that are present in the flounder but you could find that same gene in any number of other organisms it was just easier to take it from a flounder than it was to take it from another plant but you'll find those genes and plants as well that type of engineering is made possible by the universality of the genetic code that plant or animal species can read each other's genetic messages and in fact you and a P and a cow have all about you know 60 to 70% of you DNA is very similar you're much more closer to these organisms here than you might think you are because an awful lot of the basic housekeeping genes are very very similar the FDA considers them to be the same as traditionally drug crops so there's no label required there's no testing required and we really don't know what's going to happen it's an outrage and that isn't safe even at his own dinner table something you ought to be done about why doesn't the government step in in theory the government has three agencies that could regulate biotechnology generated agriculture the first and foremost would be the Food and Drug Administration but it decided beginning in 1992 to allow the deregulation of these crops from its point of view because they were equivalent to existing plants and foods a very convenient tool called the substantial equivalence principle was cooked up to say let's just treat genetically engineered organisms like conventional crops of course they don't say that when they want to patent those same things then at that point they say these are novel these are not natural but when it comes to safety they say just like nature exactly as nature made it I sometimes call this ontological schizophrenia FDA under the regulations that they exist at the moment can are only obliged to label if in fact there is a potential problem with respect to safety and efficacy now how the products of biotech are produced is actually a process that's not a product in itself FDA do not have any capability under any regulatory authority to actually label based purely on process and I think a lot of people don't realize that secondly the US Department of Agriculture could regulate these plants as they would any new plants they decided that these plants did not comprise a new category of plantings compared to other hybrid type varieties that are ready on the market sound science has demonstrated time and again that many bio technological advances are safe and reliable but if consumers at home and abroad don't share our confidence they will reject genetically treated products and we won't be able to get a return on the enormous public and private investments that have been made in biotechnology then the epa has the opportunity to regulate plants that might pose new environmental risks or would pose risks because they themselves the plants have pesticides in them rather than creating a new regulatory framework or new laws there was a decision made a recognition that existing laws could be applied to this industry and at that time there was a term and a construct that was coined that is is called the coordinated framework and that refers to the what is supposed to be a viable effective coordinated effort among those three agencies so we have three different agencies each one in my viewpoint only half-heartedly are not at all taking an aggressive regulatory posture to control this industry 1/1 1/1 there's a reason we have confidence in the federal bodies that analyze the safety of our food they may not be perfect but nobody's believes they're in anybody's hip pocket or their world's best experts we have an orderly discipline system here terry has global responsibility for Biotechnology regulatory public policy and external affairs for DuPont nutrition and health he was formerly the aphids administrator here in USDA and might I add dr. medley it's nice to see that this professional life beyond government we must continue to argue in multilateral forums like the WTO that our biotech products have withstood the strictest scientific scrutiny it's nice to see this professional life younger [Applause] based on our experiences the existing FDA guidelines have been transparent effective and have function to assure the safety of our food supply the consumer certainly has a right to know what is in his or her foods but place

This video and description were absolutely crawling with falsehoods, myths, conspiracy theories and outright lies. That's why the last 10 years have made it obsolete. A visionary would have celebrated such a potentially life saving agricultural technology development but rosary films decided to take the low road. But hey it's Youtube, where the idiocracy comes to feed. The sad thing is how it gave idiots like Steve Misosky a place to post even more lies and fear mongering. NOW the GMO debate is over. You will never get those fear monger labels

SummaryGM (genetically modified) Crops, GC (genetically contaminated) weeds, gene jump, insect mutation, agricultural modeling, ecosystem dynamics There is evidence in published reports and scientific literature that GM crops can contaminate natural crops of the same family in the field or even weeds that are their distant relatives. We are considering the problem from an evolutionary point of view. Will GM crops exhibit a controllable dynamics, will they be dominated by or will they dominate the ecosystem? Will GM crops lead to new species? How will these new species affect the agriculture? These are the types of questions that we try to answer in this paper. The scenario that we model is a situation where a “gene jump ” occurs from some experimental genetically modified plot into a natural crop field. By a series of simulation experiments, we investigate the possible long term consequences of this gene jump. Our results indicate that in most situations, either GC crop of GC weed would dominate the field in the long term, which is an alarming result, justifying further research.

2)Long Term Impacthttp://www.researchgate.net/publication/258882892_GMO_Adoption_and_Nonmarket_Effects

SummaryTo study the long-term usefulness of genetically-modified agriculture via herbicide-tolerant crops, a simulation model is built by focusing on the fundamental environmental feedback mechanisms. The most critical mechanism is the evolution of resistance in weeds via natural selection. Agricultural sustainability is investigated under different policies and scenarios, in comparison with conventional crops under two herbicide strategies. In the first strategy, herbicide amount is a function of weed density; in the second it is constant. It is found that superweed emergence increases the rate of resistance evolution in weeds. Under the constant herbicide strategy, GM crop is more effective than the conventional crop. However, this strategy results in a higher rate of resistance development and more herbicide usage than the first strategy. In terms of long term cumulative yield losses, rate of resistance development and herbicide usage, the best policy is discovered to be planting conventional crops under variable herbicide strategy.

SummaryThe likelihood of transgene movement into wild relatives of cultivated crops varies vary dramatically with geography. From the perspective of the UK, crops such as maize lack any close relatives and so effectively cannot act as a source for transgene recruitment into wild plant species. At the other extreme, forage grasses such as Lolium perenne are wind pollinated and have abundant wild populations growing in close proximity. In cases like this, hybrids will be so numerous and widespread that the risk assessment process should focus on the ecological consequences of transgene presence. In both of these scenarios, hybridisation rates have little importance in the overall risk assessment process. This is not the situation for the many crops that fall into the intermediate condition, where there are partially compatible wild relatives that only occasionally co-occur with the crop. In these instances, the extent of gene flow (initial hybrid formation) forms an important component of risk evaluation. Quantifying interspecific gene flow into wild relatives Most modern crops have close wild relatives belonging to different species but with which hybrids can be formed. Ellstrand et al. (1999) reviewed evidence relating to

A report funded by the UK government and directed by Dr Mike Wilkinson of Reading University (UK) states that cross-pollination between GM plants and their wild relatives is inevitable and could create hybrid superweeds resistant to the most powerful weed killers. The report, titled "Hybridization Between Brassica napus and B. rapa on a National Scale in the United Kingdom", has been published in the online magazine "Science" on 9 October 2003 (10.1126/science.1088200).

The results of the research, which involved analysing satellite images of the British countryside and patrolling 180 miles of river banks, reveal that hybridisation is both more widespread and frequent than previously anticipated. Physical barriers such as isolation distances – buffer zones designed to stop pollen spreading from GM crops into the wild – would have only a limited impact on preventing hybridisation.

AbstractGlyphosate-resistant (GR) crops have been sold commercially in the USA since 1996. The use of glyphosate alone or with conventional pre- and post-emergence herbicides with different modes of action gives growers many options for affordable, safe, easy, effective wide-spectrum weed control. Despite the overwhelming popularity of this technology, technical issues have surfaced from time to time as US growers adopt these crops for use on their farms. The types of concern raised by growers vary from year to year depending on the crop and the environment, but include perceptions of increased sensitivity to diseases, increased fruit abortion, reduced pollination efficiency, increased sensitivity to environmental stress, and differences in yield and agronomic characteristics between transgenic and sister conventional varieties. Although several glyphosate-resistant crops are commercially available, maize, soybean and cotton constitute the largest cultivated acreage and have likewise been associated with the highest number of technical concerns. Because glyphosate is rapidly translocated to and accumulates in metabolic sink tissues, reproductive tissues and roots are particularly vulnerable. Increased sensitivity to glyphosate in reproductive tissues has been documented in both glyphosate-resistant cotton and maize, and results in reduced pollen production and viability, or increased fruit abortion. Glyphosate treatments have the potential to affect relationships between the GR crop, plant pathogens, plant pests and symbiotic micro-organisms, although management practices can also have a large impact.

5) Letting the gene out of the bottle: the population genetics of genetically modified cropshttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2006.01710.x/full#abstract

Direct effects of GM crops on natural habitatsWhile numerous herbicide-resistant GM crops are now available to farmers, most have been modified to be resistant to one of only a handful of the many herbicides available (e.g. glyphosate or glufosinate). Thus, the growing of several crops engineered to be resistant to the same herbicide, and the concomitant consistent use of that herbicide, will increase the selection pressure on nearby wild species. This, in turn, increases the likelihood of herbicide resistance evolving in a local weed population, as has been reported in both annual ryegrass (Lolium rigidum) (Powles et al., 1998) and horseweeds (Conyza canadensis) (VanGessel, 2001; Koger et al., 2004).

There is a similar concern with regard to the evolution of pesticide resistance in herbivores that are consistently exposed to toxin-producing crops. Ultimately, this would reduce the efficacy not only of the GM crop, but of any pesticide based on the same toxin. Of particular concern in this context are members of a group of endotoxins isolated from the soil bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt). These toxins affect lepidopteran larvae (e.g. European corn borer (Ostrinia nubilalis)), and are the most common toxins engineered into crops. In fact, Bt pesticides have been applied for over 40 years, and Bt GM crops were grown on over 15 M ha in 2004 (http://www.isaaa.org/kc/); thus, any detrimental effects of Bt toxin on the environment are likely to be of major consequence.

6) Going to “Great Lengths” to Prevent the Escape of Genes That Produce Specialty Chemicalshttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC526271/

It isn't easy to keep crop genes from wandering. For example, plant breeders trying to create corn seed of high genetic purity have recognized that the physical separation of different corn varieties by 200 m (660 feet) will still result in “contamination” due to cross-pollination at levels of about 0.1% (National Academy of Sciences, 2000). It is well known that most crops naturally mate with their wild relatives as well (Ellstrand, 2003). Seeds don't stay in place either. They can persist in the soil seed bank. They can mix in the nooks and crannies of harvesting equipment. They can bounce out of vehicles transporting them and germinate on roadsides (e. g. Pessel et al., 2001). The movement of unwanted crop genes into the environment may pose more of a management dilemma than unwanted chemicals. A single molecule of 1,1,1,-trichloro-2,2-bis(p-chlorophenyl) ethane remains a single molecule or degrades, but a single crop allele has the opportunity to multiply itself repeatedly through reproduction, which can frustrate attempts at containment.

How likely is it that corn genes will end up where they shouldn't be? Without efforts to isolate corn populations so that they don't cross-pollinate and without efforts to keep seed for different uses separate, inadvertent mixing of genetic material in corn is so likely that some mixing is a certainty. The “Starlink” GM corn incident of 2000 illustrates how easily things can get out of hand, even when some attempts are made to maintain segregation. This particular variety of GM corn was released exclusively for animal consumption before the determination of whether it was also suitable for human consumption. Nonetheless, it rapidly entered the general corn grain supply of the United States, within a single year turning up “in nearly one-tenth of 110,000 grain tests performed by U.S. federal inspectors” (Haslberger, 2001). How it spread is still a mystery. In some cases, it appears that some of the individuals handling, transporting, and processing the grain were inadequately educated or concerned about the need to keep it segregated from corn that was to be used for human consumption; in others, it appears that cross-pollination or seed dispersal accounted for the mixing. Although the Cry9C protein produced by this GM corn is unlikely to pose a hazard with a high rate of occurrence, the fact that pollen and seed moved the gene so rapidly demonstrates how quickly and extensively unintentional movement can occur.

7) Genetically Modified Crop on the Loose and Evolving in U.S. Midwest GM canola plant refugees from farms in North Dakota bear multiple transgenic traits http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/genetically-modified-crop/

"We found transgenic plants growing in the middle of nowhere, far from fields," says ecologist Cindy Sagers of the University of Arkansas (U.A.) in Fayetteville, who presented the findings August 6 at the Ecological Society of America meeting in Pittsburgh. Most intriguingly, two of the 288 tested plants showed man-made genes for resistance to multiple pesticides—so-called "stacked traits," and a type of seed that biotechnology companies like Monsanto have long sought to develop and market. As it seems, Mother Nature beat biotech to it. "One of the ones with multiple traits was [in the middle of] nowhere, and believe me, there's a lot of nowhere in North Dakota—nowhere near a canola field," she adds.

Escaped populations of such transgenic plants have generally died out quickly without continual replenishment from stray farm seeds in places such as Canada, but canola is capable of hybridizing with at least two—and possibly as many as eight—wild weed species in North America, including field mustard (Brassica rapa), which is a known agricultural pest. "Not only is it going to jump out of cultivation; there are sexually compatible weeds all over North America," Sagers says. Adds ecologist-in-training Meredith Schafer of U.A., who led the research, "It becomes a weed [farmers] can't control."

Transgenic plants express the transgene as an integral part of their growth and development. This implies that the transgene is likely to interact with the plant's physiology and with the expression of its other genes. In addition, the transgene product is metabolized into other products in the plant or in associated organisms, and these products in turn could exert effects on nontarget species. Thus, the effect of a transgene, which may include pleiotropic and epistatic responses as well as potentially complex physiological interactions, is likely to be greater than the isolated effect of the transgene product.

9) Spread of herbicide-resistance from genetically modified creeping bentgrass into the wild.http://natureinstitute.org/nontarget/reports/bentgrass_001.php

ResultsThe transgene escaped into the wild by seeds (which are very small and light – about 13,500 seeds weigh one gram) and by pollen.

Watrud et al. (2004) found that the herbicide-resistance transgene spread via pollen to an area up to 21 km (13 miles) beyond the control area perimeter and had pollinated wild creeping bentgrass as well as a close relative (redtop, Agrostis gigantean). 53% of the creeping bentgrass plants investigated had offspring that were herbicide-resistant; most of these plants were found in a 2.1 km (1.3 mi.) area outside and downwind of the control area.

Zapiola et al. remark that it is "unrealistic to think that a transgene could be contained in an outcrossing, wind-pollinated, small-seeded, perennial crop, even with expanded isolation distances and stringent production practices" (p. 5). Moreover, since many specimens of transgenic creeping bentgrass were found three years after the large field trial, the "elimination of transgenes is unlikely to be feasible," especially since within the control area "an intense and extended mitigation program had been initiated and is still underway [by The Scotts Company]" (p. 7).

In November 2007 the USDA reached a settlement with The Scotts Company, which agreed to pay a $500,000 civil penalty for failing to comply with "performance standards and permit conditions" and for accidental release of the transgenic bentgrass in the 2003 field trials (USDA News Release No. 0350.07).

10) Agriculture Under ThreatCanadian Journal of Law and Technology, June 1, 2013http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2272988

AbstractThe issue of Adventitious Presence (AP) of genes, those that are not “naturally” present in food and crops but rather have been placed there using recombinant deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) technology, has become a hot issue for producers and consumers. It can also be a major problem for exporters. Part of this problem is the reality that zero presence is now impossible to guarantee in some crops and products. Pressure has arisen to establish a Low Level Presence (LLP) threshold, one that is above zero, to be determined at an international level. This would allow crops to be imported and exported without the AP genes being approved in the importing country if they are approved in another country. The reality of biotechnological innovation in crops is that it is inevitable that there will be gene “flow” between varieties. This article examines the background of AP, the current state of policy and legislation, and why this has become contentious for producers, importers and exporters. This article examines the Canadian position towards AP as an illustration of a nation that produces many agricultural products based on genetically modified crops.

11) GM Crops Are Not Containable: so what?Ann Clark, Plant Agriculture, University of Guelphhttp://www.science.gov/topicpages/g/gm+crop+plants.html

First, all transgenes in commerce to date are genetically dominant, in contrast to the recessive genes which more typically code for the traits that distinguish crop from weed species (his p.175). Dominant traits are acted upon by selection immediately, while recessive genes are masked from natural selection and are acted upon much more slowly. Thus, the traits coded for by transgenes may be eliminated or amplified in weed populations at a much faster rate than conventional genes. While herbicide tolerance (HT) – which accounts either solely or jointly for about 75% of all transgenic hectarage – is unlikely to be adaptive in the absence of herbicides, a wide range of plant, animal, and microbial applications is in varying degrees of readiness for commercialization, as tabulated by the CBCGEO (2004) and others. Many pending traits have never existed in the environment on a commercial scale, resulting in potentially novel ecological and evolutionary impacts.

Secondly, regardless of the intended traits, transgenic crops also express a range of unintended gene expression effects such as increased bolting in weedy beets (cited in Ellstrand, 2003), larger flowers, which may have contributed to the 20-fold higher rate of outcrossing in transgenic Arabadopsis thaliana (Bergelson et al., 1998), and changes to ecologically important fitness traits – as seedling survival and dormancy – in subterranean clover (Trifolium subterraneum) fitted with a nutrition-enhancing transgene (Godfree et al., 2004). A range of inadvertent outcomes specific to the mode of action of glyphosate-resistant crops is reviewed by Pline-Srnic (2005). To the extent that unintended gene expression is greater in transgenic than in conventionally bred crops, the ecological effects of transgene flow into wild/weedy relatives could have less predictable impacts. Thus, crop-to-weed gene flow is not the exception but the rule. Implications should be considered in the realm of “when” not “if” it happens.

12) ‘‘Transgenic treadmill”: Responses to the emergence and spread of glyphosate-resistant johnsongrass in Argentinahttp://ictaservidor.uab.es/99_recursos/1241769532578.pdf

Abstract The broad-spectrum herbicide glyphosate has become the largest-selling crop-protection product worldwide. The increased use of glyphosate is associated with the appearance of a growing number of tolerant or resistant weeds, with socio-environmental consequences apart from the loss of productivity. In 2002, a glyphosate-resistant biotype of johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense (L.)) appeared in Argentina and now covers at least 10,000 ha. This paper analyzes the driving forces behind the emergence and spread of this weed and also examines management responses and their implications. Preventive strategies against glyphosate-resistant johnsongrass fail because of the institutional setting. Reactive measures, however, transfer the risks to the society and the environment through the introduction of novel genetically modified crops that allow the use of yet more herbicide. This in turn reinforces the emergence of herbicide-resistant weeds, constituting a new phenomenon of intensification, the ‘‘transgenic treadmill”.

IntroductionThe increased use of glyphosate has led to the appearance of tolerant or resistant weeds which, in turn, implies environmental and monetary costs beside productivity losses (Service, 2007). Although glyphosate was initially considered a low-risk for the development of herbicide-resistance by industrial scientists (Bradshaw et al., 1997), the first records of GR-weeds date from 1996 in Australia. Currently, 14 GR weeds have been documented worldwide (Heap, 2007; Valverde, 2007; Powles, 2008). This article deals with a highly invasive weed called johnsongrass. Several cases of GR johnsongrass have appeared in Argentina while two others have been reported by the University of Arkansas, the Mississippi State University and Monsanto in the USA (Monsanto, 2008). In Argentina, additionally, some common weeds such as Parietaria debilis, Petunia axilaris, Verbena litoralis, Verbena bonariensis, Hybanthus parviflorus, Iresine diffusa, Commelina erecta and Ipomoea sp. have been reported to be glyphosate-tolerant (Papa, 2000). The appearance of herbicide-resistant weeds associated with an increased consumption of glyphosate by GR cropping systems has become one of the main ecological risks when releasing GMOs to the environment (Altieri, 2005; Barton and Dracup, 2000; Ervin et al., 2003; Martínez-Ghersa et al., 2003; McAfee, 2003; Powles, 2003; Snow et al., 2005; Steinbrecher, 2001). Until today, those documented cases have been solely assessed from an agronomic perspective rather than accounting for a broader context (Beckie, 2006; Duke and Powles, 2008; Powles, 2008). In this paper we will review and discuss the emergence of GR johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense (L.)) biotypes in Argentina and their associated management strategies by means of analysing the political, economic and institutional driving forces leading to this phenomenon. We also devote part of the paper to analysing the consequences for rural dynamics

BackgroundIn 2008/2009, Schmidt and colleagues published a study reporting lethal effects of the microbial Bt toxins Cry1Ab and Cry3Bb [proteins expressed by several transgenic crop plants to control certain pests ] on the coccinellid biological control organisms Adalia bipunctata [ two spotted lady bug ]. Based on this study, in concert with over 30 other publications, Mon810 cultivation was banned in Germany in 2009. This triggered two commentaries and one experimental study all published in the journal 'Transgenic Research' that question the scientific basis of the German ban or claim to disprove the adverse effects of the Bt toxins on A. bipunctata reported by Schmidt and colleagues, respectively. This study was undertaken to investigate the underlying reasons for the different outcomes and rebuts the criticism voiced by the two other commentaries.

ResultsIt could be demonstrated that the failure to detect an adverse effect by Alvarez-Alfageme and colleagues is based on the use of a significantly different testing protocol. While Schmidt and colleagues exposed and fed larvae of A. bipunctata continuously, Alvarez-Alfageme and colleagues applied an exposure/recovery protocol. When this exposure/recovery protocol was applied to a highly sensitive target insect, Ostrinia nubilalis, the lethal effect was either significantly reduced or disappeared altogether. When repeating the feeding experiments with the Bt toxin Cry1Ab using a combined protocol of both previous studies, again, a lethal effect on A. bipunctata larvae was observed. ELISA tests with Bt-toxin fed larvae and pupae confirmed ingestion of the toxin.

ConclusionsThe new data corroborates earlier findings that Cry1Ab toxin increases mortality in A. bipunctata larvae. It was also shown that the different applied testing protocols explained the contrasting results.

Although plants transformed with genetic material from the bacteriumBacillus thuringiensis (Bt ) are generally thought to have negligible impact on non-target organisms1, Bt corn plants might represent a risk because most hybrids express the Bt toxin in pollen2, and corn pollen is dispersed over at least 60 metres by wind3. Corn pollen is deposited on other plants near corn fields and can be ingested by the non-target organisms that consume these plants. In a laboratory assay we found that larvae of the monarch butterfly, Danaus plexippus, reared on milkweed leaves dusted with pollen from Bt corn, ate less, grew more slowly and suffered higher mortality than larvae reared on leaves dusted with untransformed corn pollen or on leaves without pollen.

GM crops have bred super weeds: TrueJay Holder, a farming consultant in Ashburn, Georgia, first noticed Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) in a client’s transgenic cotton fields about five years ago. Palmer amaranth is a particular pain for farmers in the southeastern United States, where it outcompetes cotton for moisture, light and soil nutrients and can quickly take over fields.

Since the late 1990s, US farmers had widely adopted GM cotton engineered to tolerate the herbicide glyphosate, which is marketed as Roundup by Monsanto in St Louis, Missouri. The herbicide–crop combination worked spectacularly well — until it didn’t. In 2004, herbicide-resistant amaranth was found in one county in Georgia; by 2011, it had spread to 76. “It got to the point where some farmers were losing half their cotton fields to the weed,” says Holder.

Claims from Monsanto that glyphosate resistance was unlikely to develop naturally in weeds when the herbicide was used properly. As late as 2004, the company was publicizing a multi-year study suggesting that rotating crops and chemicals does not help to avert resistance. When applied at Monsanto’s recommended doses, glyphosate killed weeds effectively, and “we know that dead weeds will not become resistant”, said Rick Cole, now Monsanto’s technical lead of weed management, in a trade-journal advertisement at the time. The study, published in 2007 (ref. 1), was criticized by scientists for using plots so small that the chances of resistance developing were very low, no matter what the practice.

Glyphosate-resistant weeds have now been found in 18 countries worldwide, with significant impacts in Brazil, Australia, Argentina and Paraguay, says Ian Heap, director of the International Survey of Herbicide Resistant Weeds, based in Corvallis, Oregon. And Monsanto has changed its stance on glyphosate use, now recommending that farmers use a mix of chemical products and ploughing. But the company stops short of acknowledging a role in creating the problem.

ConclusionSeeds of traditional varieties of corn, soybeans, and canola are pervasively contaminated with low levels of DNA sequences derived from transgenic varieties.

This conclusion is based on tests conducted by two respected commercial laboratories using duplicate samples of seeds of six traditional varieties each of corn, soybeans, and canola. One laboratory detected transgenically derived DNA in 50 percent of the corn, 50 percent of the soybean, and 100 percent of the traditional canola varieties tested. The other laboratory detected transgenically derived DNA in 83 percent of the traditional varieties of each of the three crops. The most conservative expression of the combined results is that transgenically derived DNA was detected in 50 percent of the corn, 50 percent of the soybean, and 83 percent of the canola varieties tested

WHAATTT!!!!????? Where to even begin with how totally wrong that entire statment is. Where in the world could you have gotten that disinfo? Even Monsanto's own studies show the complete opposite. The food is devoid of nutrients because the method used causes chelation which robs the food of nutrients and causes the need for more fertilizer and the weak plants = the need for more insecticide. Basic business dictates that making a product that would make your main product less viable is a NO-NO

It's called biodynamics. Just as you say monocropping destroys the ground you cannot expect the same yield no matter what you dump on that ground it will always yield less not more. It's in big Agrochem's interest to use that system because it is their seed, poison, and plastic fertilizer. They make more money. Look up Permaculture it has the highest yield per hectare. For eons farms have provided for the community with no issues. Did you actually watch the video? Perhaps the GMO's made you slow

Would someone like to explain how you are going to get higher yields of cereals , oilseeds or beans or potatoes on small farms ? Nonsense. You are dreaming. The low yields in the prairies are due to restricting factors like lack of irrigation or fertiliser. If you go organic route then you get less yield still. Maybe the year of wheat gives good yield but then you need 4 years of rotational legumes or grass to build up fertility again.

Hi ihytvm, This is an interesting video. It is surely good to keep an eye out for evidence of harmful side effects from GM but who can tell of the harm from all the pesticides used ? What about all the other chemicals we are exposed to in daily life ? If there were only 1000 million people instead of 6000 million then there wouldn't be the same pressure to use GM or pesticides but no one can agree how to reduce population levels ethically.

Genetically engineered food is intended to 'soft kill' most of the world's population. The 'elite few' want to drastically decrease the number of 'useless eaters', but they cannot do it with bullets and bombs. What better way to kill off these 'useless eaters' by feeding them with food that would slowly sicken them without them even knowing it. My friend died from cancer at the age of 37 after years of eating what he thought was healthy genetically engineered fruits and vegetable.

@werdna2590 @lickflame Based on income my family is below poverty level and I actually pay less for organic than I would for most conventional foods because I belong to an organic co-op. Organic co-ops exist in most countries and cities. I find it funny that most people who say they cant afford organic smoke like 2 packs of cigarettes a day which costs more than I spend on organic food.

@markgg1 "GM-fed mice of all ages considered, the number of perichromatin granules is higher and the nuclear pore density lower.""we found enlargements in the smooth endoplasmic reticulum in GM-fed mice Sertoli cells." ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez/15718213?dopt=Abstract&holding=f1000,f1000m,isrctn "our data suggest that GM soybean intake can influence hepatocyte nuclear features in young and adult mice" ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez/12441651?dopt=Abstract&holding=f1000,f1000m,isrctn

@markgg1 "Diets containing genetically modified (GM) potatoes expressing the lectin Galanthus nivalis agglutinin (GNA) had variable effects on different parts of the rat gastrointestinal tract. Some effects, such as the proliferation of the gastric mucosa,were mainly due to the expression of the GNA transgene." biotech-info"dot"net/Lancet_Study.pdf "The GM-fed D. magna had lower survival (lx) than the UM-fed D. magna throughout the experiment" ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2811247/